Comparing Approaches
Two ways to arrive at a price, set beside each other.
This page compares habit-set pricing with a records-based review, without asking anyone to think less of what they already do.
Back to homeWhy compare at all
Most companies did not choose their current price so much as arrive at it — a figure set at founding, adjusted for inflation once or twice, left alone since. That is not a fault; it is simply what happens when attention is spent elsewhere. Comparing approaches is a way to see what a more deliberate process would look like, so the choice to change or to stay can be made with that in view.
Traditional approach vs. this approach
| Aspect | Habit-set pricing | Green Azalea approach |
|---|---|---|
| Basis for figures | Prior year, adjusted informally | Current accounting records, line by line |
| Visibility of allocation | Overhead often bundled together | Overhead separated by line and behaviour |
| Written record | Rarely kept | Produced with every engagement |
| Review frequency | Irregular or absent | Quarterly, if wanted |
What sets this apart
The work is conducted against a company's actual accounting records rather than sector averages, and every figure produced is placed beside a note naming the assumptions behind it. Nothing appears on the page — or in a client report — as a bare number.
This is a methodological preference, not a claim that other methods are wrong. Benchmark-based approaches have their place, particularly for companies without detailed internal records to draw on.
On effectiveness
Records-based margin work tends to surface one or two product lines worth a closer look — sometimes underpriced, sometimes simply less profitable than assumed. Benchmark-based approaches can miss this, since an industry average does not know your specific cost mix.
Assumption
Outcomes vary by company and by how closely findings are followed. No specific result is promised for any engagement.
On cost and benefit
A Margin Structure Review is priced at ¥28,500 and takes three weeks. Set against the cost of continuing to run one or two unprofitable lines indefinitely, many companies find the review pays for the attention it buys well before the engagement ends — though this depends entirely on what the review finds and what is done with it afterward.
What working together looks like
Where a traditional consulting relationship often means handing over records and waiting for a report, this approach keeps the client present through the working session itself — asking, checking, and querying the figures as they are built, rather than receiving conclusions afterward.
Sustainability of results
A one-off review answers a question about a single point in time. The Quarterly Figures Review exists because cost structures shift — a supplier changes terms, a line grows faster than expected — and a rhythm of checking keeps the original findings from quietly going stale.
A few common misconceptions
"Benchmark pricing is always faster."
Often true for a first estimate, though it can miss company-specific cost behaviour that a records-based review would catch.
"A records-based review requires perfect bookkeeping."
Reasonably organized records are enough; the review itself often clarifies gaps rather than requiring them closed first.
Why some companies choose this approach
It suits companies that keep reasonably detailed records, carry more than a handful of product lines, and would rather see the reasoning behind a number than take it on faith. If that describes your situation, a short message is enough to begin.
Start a conversation